Thanks for forwarding this Christian-Emil, it's interesting. I'm very surprised that the TEI folks consider ISO standards to be "proprietary"! ISO standards are NOT proprietary -- in fact, the whole point of publishing standards through an international standards body such as ISO is to PREVENT self-serving corporate interests from influencing the design and maintenance of the standard.
I think this is a terminology issue, and what they really mean rather than "proprietary" is "not free." I agree that Nick or Martin should disabuse them of their misconceptions about the meaning of the term "proprietary" and the ongoing (free) availability of the CIDOC CRM. Cheers, T. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On > Behalf Of Christian-Emil Ore > Sent: Wednesday 19 May 2004 5:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [crm-sig] TEI and CRM > > > Dear all, > > I don't know how many of you who read the TEI-list. There > seems to be not > too much communication between the TEI (text encoding > initiative) and the > museum communities. But I cannot see any scholarly/scientific > reason for > this other than tradition. TEI is good on encoding texts > (form, structure > and bibliographical information), but it is incomplete and > unsystematic > with respect to encoding and the extraction of semantic > content. However, > Franco Niccolucci, Nick Ryan, Jon Holmen and I have worked on > how to extend > TEI with the CRM-ontology to mark up older archaeological texts. > > At the end of this email I have attached two postings from > the TEI-list. In > my opinion it is important to inform the TEI-community why we > have chosen > to make CRM into an ISO standard and which (if any) > limitations this may have. > > I think it would be a good idea if Nick Croft or Martin Dörr > could send an > explaining answer to the TEI-list. > > Best, > Christian-Emil Ore > > ************************************************************** > ************************************************************** > **************** > X-From_: [email protected] Tue May 18 19:40:01 2004 > Envelope-to: [email protected] > User-Agent: Turnpike/6.02-M (<nbMm9VyrkTrnU+XWsqtGaM0Qa6>) > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by > listserv.brown.edu id > i4IHVeA20647 > Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 18:31:29 +0100 > Reply-To: Richard Light <[email protected]> > Sender: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" > <[email protected]> > From: Richard Light <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: TEI policy [was: Re: Prosopographic tags: > where should they > be?] > Comments: To: Dieter Köhler <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by > listserv.brown.edu > id i4IHViA20674 > X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for > viruses/spam.. > Contact [email protected] if you have questions about this scanning > X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found > X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 12) > > In message <[email protected]>, Dieter > Köhler <[email protected]> writes > > >According to the "Introduction" on the CIDOC web-site, it is > planed to turn > >the Conceptual Reference Model into an ISO standard. > Recalling the recent > >thread about ISO's policy regarding language identifiers, I > wonder what > >legal and practical implications this has for adopting and > using (parts of) > >their ontology for TEI. I have the impression that such > issues are getting > >more and more important, as creating ontologies and markup > schemes becomes > >a business that makes money. > > > >Personally I would prefer that best practice for academic > text encoding > >discourages the use of such proprietary standards wherever > possible, even > >if it is then necessary to develop alternatives for already existing > >standards. The cumulated costs of proprietary standards and > their negative > >effect on free information exchange are, in my opinion, too high. > > I would strongly support this sentiment myself, and I am somewhat > dismayed to see the CIDOC CRM branded as a "proprietary standard", > simply because it is being put forward as an International Standard. > > It is certainly, in practice, being developed by dedicated members of > the museums community for the common good. Whatever policies > ISO might > be pursuing, I am sure that CIDOC itself has no intention to > license or > otherwise restrict the use of the CRM. (I will certainly be raising > this issue with CIDOC.) > > Come to that, where does this line of argument leave the TEI's use of > SGML (ISO 8879-1986) ?? > > Richard Light > > -- > Richard Light > SGML/XML and Museum Information Consultancy > [email protected] > > ************************************************************** > ************************************************************** > *************************** > > > >X-From_: [email protected] Wed May 12 05:44:25 2004 > >Envelope-to: [email protected] > >Apparently-To: <[email protected]> > >X-Sender: > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 > >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by > listserv.brown.edu id > > i4C3P0A28188 > >Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:23:56 +1200 > >Reply-To: Dieter Köhler <[email protected]> > >Sender: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list" > > <[email protected]> > >From: Dieter Köhler <[email protected]> > >Subject: TEI policy [was: Re: Prosopographic tags: > where should they be?] > >To: [email protected] > >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by > listserv.brown.edu > >id i4C3PRA28252 > >X-MailScanner-Information: This message has been scanned for > viruses/spam. > >Contact [email protected] if you have questions about this scanning > >X-UiO-MailScanner: No virus found > >X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=0, required 12) > > > >>The museum community has created a high-level framework - > the Conceptual > >>Reference Model (http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/) which > describes the types > >>of classes which we might be interested in, and their > properties, in a > >>high-level abstract model. Could be useful. > > > >According to the "Introduction" on the CIDOC web-site, it is > planed to turn > >the Conceptual Reference Model into an ISO standard. > Recalling the recent > >thread about ISO's policy regarding language identifiers, I > wonder what > >legal and practical implications this has for adopting and > using (parts of) > >their ontology for TEI. I have the impression that such > issues are getting > >more and more important, as creating ontologies and markup > schemes becomes > >a business that makes money. > > > >The first fundamental principle of the TEI Consortium, > according to its > >charter, is: "The TEI guidelines, other documentation, and > DTD should be > >free to users". As encouraging this statement in principle > is, it is very > >vague, though. And I wonder whether there exists really a > consensus among > >the TEI Consortium members what this statement implies in detail. > > > >One important lesson to be learned from the open source > movement may be > >that it is essential to get the legal framework right and > clear. Applied > >to the TEI, this means that further efforts are needed to > clarify the TEI > >Consortium's policy for areas such as: > > > >1. Use of an ontology or markup scheme for data encoding > >2. Implementation of an ontology or markup scheme into software > >3. Adoption of ideas by other ontologies or markup schemes > >4. Accessibility of the specification > >5. Republication of the specification (completely or in part) > > > >These issues are not only vital for the TEI DTDs and the guidelines > >themselves, but of similar importance for the standards > referred to in the > >guidelines as "normative", or only as "best practice" or > >"recommended". For example, the current guidelines > recommend ISO 8601 as > >the format for the "value" attribute of tags from the > temporal expression > >class (see P4, sec. 20.4). However, the latest version of > this 30 pages > >specification, ISO 8601:2000, is not freely available on the > Internet, but > >only for CHF 110.00 from the ISO shop > >("http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/prods-services/CatalogueDetailPage .CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=26780&ICS1=1&ICS2=140&ICS3=30"). > >Personally I would prefer that best practice for academic text encoding >discourages the use of such proprietary standards wherever possible, even >if it is then necessary to develop alternatives for already existing >standards. The cumulated costs of proprietary standards and their negative >effect on free information exchange are, in my opinion, too high. > >Dieter Köhler
